On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Garrett D'Amore <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think substituting Sun for Oracle is a worthy enough result to > justify the risks associated with the change (which are purely > non-technical). So I'd oppose this effort. Its only worth doing if we can > eliminate the message altogether, but as I indicated, that requires a rewrite. > > - Garrett > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: > >> On 20 Feb 2012, at 23:46, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> Haha! Actually I think both of these may be problems. As Richard Lowe >>> said, I'm not sure this is a big enough problem to worry about. Its >>> annoying sure, but at the end of the day, its not really that big of an >>> issue. If you care enough about it, feel free to reimplement the >>> functionality in the file from scratch, and then we can nuke the file *and* >>> its copyright. :-) >> >> I checked, and the only change between the logsubr.c file in onnv_137 and >> illumos-gate head is the copyright change: >> >> --- /tmp/logsubr.c_137 2012-02-20 23:46:33.518520532 +0000 >> +++ /tmp/logsubr.c_head 2012-02-20 23:47:12.418541185 +0000 >> @@ -20,8 +20,7 @@ >> */ >> >> /* >> - * Copyright 2010 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. >> - * Use is subject to license terms. >> + * Copyright (c) 1998, 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights >> reserved. >> */ >> >> #include <sys/types.h> >> @@ -249,8 +248,8 @@ >> */ >> printf("\rSunOS Release %s Version %s %u-bit\n", >> utsname.release, utsname.version, NBBY * (uint_t)sizeof (void *)); >> - printf("Copyright 1983-2010 Sun Microsystems, Inc. " >> - "All rights reserved.\nUse is subject to license terms.\n"); >> + printf("Copyright (c) 1983, 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. " >> + "All rights reserved.\n"); >> #ifdef DEBUG >> printf("DEBUG enabled\n"); >> #endif >> >> If we were to completely replace the file with the onnv_137 version that >> might be the easiest way to do it. But, IANAL, it might require two commits >> - one removing the file, immediately followed by one adding the older one >> (to avoid hg generating a diff that is a copyright notice removal). >> >> If people agree this is valid within the terms of the license I don't mind >> doing a webrev + nightly + RTI. But if that's not sufficient then rewriting >> it from scratch can be left as an exercise for someone with more time to >> burn than I do :-) >> >>
Yeah, simply replacing the file with the older version, even if permitted by the licence, seems at best slightly dishonest - it was updated to inform people of a real copyright transfer. I'm with Rich here - the motivation for this could only be childish. -Albert ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
